A while back there was an argument on the internet. Yes I know. It should have stayed there, right? This time, however, it had to do with something I as a gamer have had to struggle with a long time. And, by the way, as a game developer. It is that confounded, over used and frankly to my mind pathetic defense of using “historically correct” as an excuse to justify certain characteristics of fantasy settings.

Usually it has to do with the treatment of women, why they are a part of the world in the specific way that they are, or why they’re not. What roles they can have, how those roles are limited etc. Fantasy game settings often reflect a fairly homogenous mass or war, hierarchies, orcs and dragons. They call into being a world where women are treated as backdrops to the real participants in the world, and almost Aristotlean society* where the action is performed and centered around men and their bloody conflicts, forgetting everyday life in favor of high politics, action and – in the best cases – intrigue.

So why is it such a lousy excuse, this historical correctness in fantasy settings? Because the author chooses the influences to use. It is solely in the hands of the author what parts of history to pick and include in the game setting, novel or adventure. No one else tells the author how to portray men, women and others in whatever context they choose to act in. And so the excuse is just that. An excuse for the poor treatment of whichever “minority”** that happen to get the short end of the stick at that particular time. “But it was like that back then” has no relevance for a made up world. If there are dragons, why can’t there be equality? I believe it is because we reproduce patterns we see around us even when we play. There is nothing wrong with sticking inside of your own comfort zones, we can’t always be creative enough to forge new paths through unknown terrain and stuff like that, it would be exhausting. But we can stop defending some expressions of our culture with the “historically correct” excuse. We can also start recognizing that some expressions of our culture – although enjoyable – leave some things to be desired.

For me, looking back at Blade runner, I still think it is an excellent film. But the scene between Deckard and Rachael in his apartment is uncomfortably close to rape, with an obviously unwilling Rachael more or less forced into compliance by Deckard. I find it extremely uncomfortable to watch nowadays. There are a lot of those scenes in older movies (and newer ones too).

As a movie fan, as a gamer, asa comic book reader, as a fantasy reader it has to be okay for me to like some parts of a work and dislike others, without needing excuses.

In a research paper about boys’ interactions in the Sims, Anna Munthers and Louise Peterson*** come to the conclusion that freedom is not the same thing as exploration. The Sims allow boys to play around with gender identity, but they rarely do. Instead they reproduce sociocultural patterns they see around them. My conclusion is that even though we are potentially free to explore anything in games, we rarely do. Instead we reproduce cultural patterns and norms that fall within our comfort zones. We have an easier time imagining dragons and elves than we have imagining women in power. This is not a new conclusion. Gary Alan Fine drew the same conclusions in “Shared Fantasy” when he talked about the freedom of choice in role-playing games. Yes we are free to choose, but we don’t. Instead we keep to comfortable and excluding power fantasies, tailored to the same homogenous group interests that have dominated nerd culture for a long time. White, heterosexual males. No wonder these power fantasies are so similar.

With this in mind, that we have the freedom to be inspired by anything from the past, it is hard to defend an author’s choice by saying “that’s the way it was”. Maybe it was. But there are dragons in the book as well. So why dragons and not powerful (fill in the blank)? This is why I feel that “historically correct” doesn’t cut it as an excuse for the poor treatment of representative minorities, be it in games, books or other media. We choose. Sometimes those choices are poor. We have to start recognizing that, and we have to start recognizing why we make those choices. And in the end that it is okay to like only parts of a cultural expression without feeling the need to defend it with thin arguments about how it’s not really that bad, it’s just historically correct.
________________________________________________
* Woman was, according to Aristotle, an imperfect or incomplete man. In the hierarchical world of Ancient Greece, this meant that men could legitimately control women’s bodies. From a scientific perspective, they were lower on the status ladder than men.
** As representative minority. Remember Ursula Le Guin’s Ged? He had dark skin. In every comic, TV-series etc I’ve seen he’s been light skinned and even in some cases blonde. This does not only affect women.
*** Datorspelandets dynamik, red. Jonas Linderoth, Studentlitteratur 2007

“If there are dragons, why can’t there be equality?” That pretty much sums it up, I think. “Historical correct” is a bullshit term designed for deceptive misrepresentation, similar to Aristotle’s view of women. He saw women subject to men, but higher than a male non-Greek slave who totally lacked deliberative element. According to him, the female has it (deliberative element) but it lacks authority.

If we make a leap of faith through history (yes, you can), we could conclude that some people today regard themselves to be in the same situation as slaves or women in Athens, lacking as they are the possibilities to change the world they’re living in or, as in this case, change the setting they create for their fantasies. [Sic!]

Maria: “because we in fact have little clue on women’s part in history since it’s not written down on paper” – if this would serve as the definition of historical research, we would be in trouble indeed, clueless about 99.9 % percent of human history. Luckily, written (paper) sources are not enough if we want to say something about past life, for instance the role of women.

Michel: Still, if it’s not written on paper (or, gods forbid, on the interwebz), people tend not to hold it as fact, or simply not see it at all. The winner writes the history, but as you say, we all know they weren’t all as glorious as they claim :).

Maria: True, true, and sad. The term “correct” is not even used by professional historians very much (mainly to fend off charlatans) and like Åsa said, it’s a very bad term to use in the fantasy context. Here, you could actually make a difference and present to us a more interesting setting by choice. In the long run, the fantasy genre will kill itself, I think, if it does not compute. 🙂 

Åsa: I hope you and we all together could save the fantasy genre; you saved my day, week and probably summer as well with a single line quoted above. 🙂 

There are som points that I agree on but some that I have a sligthly different view on. I also don’t like the lazy excuse of something being “historically correct” and that’s why it has to be the way it is.

However…

First of all, let me clearify that what I’m writing about in this text are the worlds, the settings in which the stories takes place – not individual characters and how they act and look. I’m well aware that sexism and racism are alive and well in fantasy and sci-fi. With that said, not all depictions of racism and sexism as a feature of a fictional world is bad. Sometimes the bad treatment of women (or any other group) can be justified simply because it makes sense. A magical A is a magical A – a writer have to be consistent with the laws that he fabricates for his world.

An example: If what the author wants to describe an anachic, fractured world of different clans and families fighting for power and resources, then why should his characters behave in accordance with modern ethics? You simply can’t have both, you have to choose and stick with it.

A real life example from written sources: the world of Sweden in the 12-th century when Gutalagen was written. Here we see a clannish society without a central governement, no police, no security besides what you provided for yourself, a place plagued by bloodfeuds between families and of course extreme racism. Try this law on for size: what you payed for killing another man depended on where he came from. “Gotländsk mans mansbot inom fridskrets är tolv marker silver, men icke gotländsk mans fem marker silver och träls sex örar penningar.” This law is absurdly racist from our point of view, but it still makes perfect sense to me when I think of the context. Loyalty towrds the family and the clan was what kept you alive and what kept your village safe, you had to stick together, divided you fall.

My wife grew up on the African countryside – there was no formal law at that time, it was mob justice. Criminals were promptly beaten to death. How do you stay safe when there are no police? How do you ensure that your children can walk to school without getting attacked? You rely on your family, your neighbours and your tribe. The rest are just competitors for the limited resources that are avalible. So if your cousin gets in an argument down at the bar and kills some stranger from far away, why would you care? It’s more rational for you to dump the victim in a ditch and stick together.

What I’m trying to say is that if the unpleasant subjects makes sense in the context of the world that you want to write about, then thats perfectly fine. If the highest premise of the world in which the story takes place is that it is a violent, scary place where life is cheap and where the strong opress the weak, then give me a good reason why there should be equality. There is no equslity between the rich and the poor, between young and old, between noble and servant, between native and foreigner, between warrior and peasant, between the master and the slave… so why should there equality between men and women? And the reason ”because it makes you uncomfortable” is not a reason for the author to change the story although it might be a good reason for you to read another book.

This goes both ways – especially regarding the ridicilous chainmal bikini fanservice girls that plagues the fantasy/sci-fi genre. If your world is dark and gritty, how could anyone in there right mind dress like that? And how come those dark and gritty inhabitants doesn’t stay in character and swarm her on sight?

And I don’t buy the argument “if there are dragons, why can’t there be equality?” It can be applied to any subject that someone doesn’t like, so why stop at sexism: “If there are dragons, why can’t there be democracy?”, “if there are dragons, why can’t be no racism?”, “if there are dragons, why can’t everyone be nice?”, “if there are dragons, why cant the sky be green?” Well, because thats the what that the author was writing. Sometimes I get the sense that some people would prefere fantasy litterature to be Disney-fied – and forgive me if I’m a bit condesending, but it irritates me – they just don’t want to see the subjects that makes them unconfortable. Well, everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but you’re allowed to write about the subjects that you like.

With that said, not all depictions of racism and sexism as a feature of a fictional world is bad. Sometimes the bad treatment of women (or any other group) can be justified simply because it makes sense. A magical A is a magical A – a writer have to be consistent with the laws that he fabricates for his world.

That depends on the depiction, but by and large I agree, and I’ve never stated otherwise.

An example: If what the author wants to describe an anachic, fractured world of different clans and families fighting for power and resources, then why should his characters behave in accordance with modern ethics? You simply can’t have both, you have to choose and stick with it.

Again, I agree. And I’ve never stated otherwise. However, if that same author does a poor job of hiding his/ her own sexism in his/her writing, and faces criticism for it, “historically correct” is not an excuse this person is allowed to use in my opinion. He/she created the work. He/she has to take responsibility for it without chickening out and using “historically correct” as a fall back plan.

What I’m trying to say is that if the unpleasant subjects makes sense in the context of the world that you want to write about, then thats perfectly fine. If the highest premise of the world in which the story takes place is that it is a violent, scary place where life is cheap and where the strong opress the weak, then give me a good reason why there should be equality.

Again, I agree, and again: if the writer faces criticism for this type of depiction, because he/she is being sexist by for example writing all women as hapless victims, he/she can still not use the excuse “historically correct”, because the story is still created by this writer, and he/she has elected to make the world such.

And as for the reason for equality, I have none. But I have no reason to assume that the strong have to be men either.

There is no equslity between the rich and the poor, between young and old, between noble and servant, between native and foreigner, between warrior and peasant, between the master and the slave… so why should there equality between men and women? And the reason ”because it makes you uncomfortable” is not a reason for the author to change the story although it might be a good reason for you to read another book.

Again, just because I am uncomfortable with a part of a book or a film, I’ve never said I wanted the author to change the story or that there has to be equality. I’m saying that sometimes we need to look closer at depictions that take place within our popular culture and question them, and not let everything slide by explaining it away with the “historically” or otherwise “correct” label. I’m not saying stop. I’m saying stop and think and analyse. Don’t wave away criticism with a sad old excuse.

And I don’t buy the argument “if there are dragons, why can’t there be equality?” It can be applied to any subject that someone doesn’t like, so why stop at sexism: “If there are dragons, why can’t there be democracy?”, “if there are dragons, why can’t be no racism?”, “if there are dragons, why can’t everyone be nice?”, “if there are dragons, why cant the sky be green?” Well, because thats the what that the author was writing.

Exactly. And the author has to take responsibility for that and not wave away criticism with the “historically correct” excuse. And neither can the fans who like the story. Because “historically correct” is not a good excuse. Everything that happens in a popular cultural rendition of any story is based in someone’s imagination. And if you or I or anyone put that on paper, we have to be prepared to listen to criticism of our work.

Sometimes I get the sense that some people would prefere fantasy litterature to be Disney-fied – and forgive me if I’m a bit condesending, but it irritates me – they just don’t want to see the subjects that makes them unconfortable. Well, everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but you’re allowed to write about the subjects that you like.

And again, I’ve never contested that everyone has the right to their opinion.

And forgive me for being a bit condescending but it seems like you’ve missed the point entirely with the post I wrote.

Oh, I wasn’t arguing against against the point in your blog post. That wasn’t my point at all, I was just widening the subject a little bit – comparing when depictions of racism/sexism works and when they don’t because it interests me. I know you were wrinting about lame excuses and then I sidetracked a little bit in my comment.

I was speaking generally, I didn’t mean that you said all those things like “I don’t like this, change the story!” and stuff like that =)

“However, if that same author does a poor job of hiding his/ her own sexism in his/her writing, and faces criticism for it, “historically correct” is not an excuse this person is allowed to use in my opinion. He/she created the work. He/she has to take responsibility for it without chickening out and using “historically correct” as a fall back plan.”

I agree completley

The question that I ask myself when i see stuff like this is are these chracters shown as real humans or just extras, props or cliches. And in the second case, is it because we see them from the point of view of a protognist which acctualy has those opinions or is it, like you said, the author who is sloppy or even has those opinions himself.

I think a racist, sexist character or a racist, sexist world are more interesting than the goody two-shoes kind. If it’s done properly…

Which makes me curious, do you have any examples of fantasy books that you think are at either end of the spectrum? Like, what is the best and worst example that you’ve read regarding sexism in fantasy. I enjoy both good and bad books, you see =)